PROVIDENCE — The Judicial Nominating Commission cannot, as a blanket rule, prohibit the public from seeing letters that it receives regarding finalists for state judgeships, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch’s office said yesterday.

But on a case-by-case basis, the commission can withhold all or part of a letter if it contains “personal and medical information,” the attorney general’s office said in an advisory opinion prepared at the commission’s request.

The commission, which interviews candidates and recommends finalists for state judgeships, asked for Lynch’s opinion following an inquiry by The Providence Journal, which is seeking access to letters submitted either for or against eight finalists for a Superior Court vacancy.

In the past, the commission has provided The Journal with copies of letters regarding judicial candidates. But Stephen J. Carlotti, who was appointed commission chairman by Governor Carcieri in February 2007, said he would not release such letters when The Journal made an inquiry in June. He then said the commission would seek the attorney general’s opinion.

In a letter to Lynch, Carlotti said the commission believed that the letters it receives about judicial candidates “are documents of a nature exempted under the provisions of the [Access to Public Records Act] in that they are part of files maintained as part of the process of ‘hiring’ judges.”

But the attorney general’s office rejected that interpretation in yesterday’s seven-page advisory opinion, which was written by Special Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field.

“A similar argument was previously reviewed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and rejected,” Field wrote, citing the high court’s 1982 decision in The Rake v. Gorodetsky. (The Rake was a Brown University student newspaper, and Sanford H. Gorodetsky was the city’s public safety commissioner.)

In that case, the Providence Police Department argued that civil complaints made against members of the department could be kept secret because the complaints were personnel records that were placed in personnel files, Field said. But the Supreme Court concluded that argument was “of little persuasive value,” saying a “governmental agency could label all of its records personnel records, leaving nothing accessible to the public,” he said.

“For this reason,” Field wrote, “the fact that the JNC may maintain the requested letters in ‘personnel files,’ or otherwise considers the requested letters part of a candidate’s ‘personnel file,’ holds little weight.”

But Field said the Access to Public Records Act does exempt from disclosure “all personal or medical information relating to an individual in any files.”

So, he wrote, “the JNC should focus on whether the requested letters contain ‘personal or medical information,’ rather than whether the requested letters contain ‘information in personnel files maintained to hire, evaluate, promote or discipline any employee of a public body.”

Field said the attorney general’s office hasn’t seen the letters regarding the Superior Court finalists, so it cannot determine whether they contain personal or medical information. “It suffices to say, however, that this determination must be made on a letter-by-letter basis,” he wrote.

“It is conceivable that requested letters may contain ‘personal or medical information’ and therefore be exempt” either in whole or in part from public disclosure, Field wrote. “It is equally possible that exemptions not cited by the JNC in its advisory request may apply.” And the Supreme Court has said documents “may be exempt from disclosure if the privacy interests implicated by disclosure outweigh the public interest in disclosure,” he wrote.

In a news release, Lynch said, “There can be little doubt that Rhode Islanders have a significant interest in ensuring that highly qualified individuals seeking lifetime judicial appointments are selected in as open and accessible a process as possible. This advisory opinion is based upon the specific provision that the Judicial Nominating Commission asked us to review and reflects the essence of the Access to Public Records Act in ensuring an open and honest government that also protects an individual’s privacy interests.”

The Journal has requested access to letters submitted to the JNC regarding eight finalists for the vacancy created by the retirement of Superior Court Judge Vincent A. Ragosta. Those finalists are Fausto C. Anguilla, Stephen M. Isherwood, Sandra A. Lanni, Henry S. Monti, George M. Muksian, James V. Murray, Kristen E. Rodgers and Carol A. Zangari.

Yesterday, Carlotti said the commission will provide The Journal with the letters after reviewing them and redacting any personal or medical information. He said he expected to have the letters ready next week.

The attorney general’s opinion does not define “personal information.” When asked what he considers personal information, Carlotti mentioned examples such as Social Security numbers.

Carlotti declined to comment on the attorney general’s opinion.

A lawyer representing The Journal, Joseph V. Cavanagh Jr., had written to Lynch’s office, saying the JNC should not be allowed to keep the public from seeing letters regarding judicial finalists.

Yesterday, Cavanagh said, “I agree with the attorney general’s analysis generally that it would appear that, all things being equal, these letters should be available to the public.” He said he’d be very surprised if anything in the letters fits “the narrow definition” of medical or personal information that would be exempt from disclosure. “So I’m confident Mr. Carlotti has always been acting in good faith and will continue to do so and that very soon these records will be turned over,” he said.

While just about anything could be subjectively defined as “personal information,” Cavanagh said, such laws are written to protect information that any reasonable person would be surprised to see publicized — such as Social Security numbers. “Keep in mind that people wrote the letters without the assurance that they were confidential but wanted their views to be known,” he said.

The government watchdog group Common Cause Rhode Island also had written to Lynch’s office in favor of maintaining public access to the letters.

Yesterday, Common Cause Executive Director Christine Lopes said, “We are encouraged the attorney general rejected the JNC’s assertion that these records are exempt under the Access to Public Records Act. The information the public wants access to is not private, personal and medical information, but rather who is weighing in on the selection of judges.”

efitzpat@projo.com